Slowest we've ever been?

Well, while we are not 100% consistent about the best way to solve the problems that we have discovered, we are fairly sure we can articulate what needs fixing and why.

A good deal of our solutions (The recent discussion on Drazhar, and gaining CPs as part of Power from Pain comes to mind) do actually have a great deal of merit. We can manage to make fluffy, fun, competitive options..Our 5th Edition codex was popular for a single reason: it had heart behind it. The rules were fun and it was sprinkled with bits of wit by an author who clearly was putting his A-game into it.

New GW or not, I'm not convinced whatsoever that they're willing to assign a A Rate team to DE again.

Well, while we are not 100% consistent about the best way to solve the problems that we have discovered, we are fairly sure we can articulate what needs fixing and why.

A good deal of our solutions (The recent discussion on Drazhar, and gaining CPs as part of Power from Pain comes to mind) do actually have a great deal of merit. We can manage to make fluffy, fun, competitive options..Our 5th Edition codex was popular for a single reason: it had heart behind it. The rules were fun and it was sprinkled with bits of wit by an author who clearly was putting his A-game into it.

New GW or not, I'm not convinced whatsoever that they're willing to assign a A Rate team to DE again.

Whilst people hated his Craftworld Eldar codecies, Phil Kelly really got Dark Eldar, it's a shame he seems to have moved over to being just a fluff writer now.

TheBaconPopeWych

Posts : 662Join date : 2017-03-10

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Wed Aug 23 2017, 17:44

Quote :

Whilst people hated his Craftworld Eldar codecies, Phil Kelly really got Dark Eldar, it's a shame he seems to have moved over to being just a fluff writer now.

To be honest, if Kelly wrote the fluff for the DE Dex, I'd probably be jumping for joy. His descriptions of The Dark City and its inhabitants were frankly gorgeous.

_________________"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

MyrvnSybarite

Posts : 386Join date : 2012-08-05

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Wed Aug 23 2017, 18:04

For the disembarking for 8th, the wording is for "within", so do you actually get a 3.9" deployment for Wyches? Just have the base a hair inside the 3" mark? There is also the 1" melee reach, but I don't think either affect the overall speed reduction pointed out in first post.

1. Everyone is overlooking that most units move faster, 1st turn charges are allowed and charges from reserves are allowed, all of which make the game itself faster. (how many games do all of you have where you fail to get an assault off 1st turn?)

3. Also we have a drug option that boosts movement if you really are jonesing for even larger threat bubbles.

4. On turns we don't assault, our movement in boats is much better than it used to be without having to sacrifice shooting output, which is a boon no matter how you look at it.

5. I'd also note that, compared to other armies, we are assuredly on the high end of the scale for assault speed. So if your complaint is that we're slow, the logical counterpoint is 'who is faster?' to which you have limited options for consideration.

I'm not saying we're the fastest, but compared to last edition we are faster in reference to other armies than we've been since the start of 4th edition.

I think a valid concern is the relative speed differential between armies. While not insurmountable, it is different. Two concerns/issues:

Overall non-assault speed in a single turn. Before we had units moving 30"-48" to claim objectives. Those don't exist anymore. The first time I played Maelstrom in 8th it was a little jarring to not be able to claim any objective on the board regardless of location. Jetbikes are significantly slower than the previous edition.

And the relative speed for units. Yes, 8th edition Wyches may be faster than 7" edition Wyches for a charge... But space marines are orders of magnitude faster for a charge between the edition.

I still dig elves. I think they can work. And I don't mind the index army list. But for overall speed... I think dark elves have slowed up a bit when compared to other armies.

TheBaconPopeWych

Posts : 662Join date : 2017-03-10

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 20:06

Quote :

1. Everyone is overlooking that most units move faster, 1st turn charges are allowed and charges from reserves are allowed, all of which make the game itself faster. (how many games do all of you have where you fail to get an assault off 1st turn?)

Just about every game, actually. I'm not much of an assault based player, but 1 of the units we can Deep Strike is entirely focused on shooting, while the other is arguably a more shooty focused unit as well. Aside from that, most deployment zones are 24" apart, combined with the fact that we have to disembark before we move means that for infantry, the threat range is 10-20," and for beasts such as the Clawed Fiend and Khymera, it's 12-22." Hellions stand an actual chance at making it to the enemy deployment zone, with their range of 16-26" but that's, what, like a 17% chance of charging a unit deployed at the front of their zone?

3. Also we have a drug option that boosts movement if you really are jonesing for even larger threat bubbles.

So the 17% turns into 33%. Failing 2/3 times is hardly something to rely on, especially if you're putting yourself into rapid fire range to do so.

Quote :

4. On turns we don't assault, our movement in boats is much better than it used to be without having to sacrifice shooting output, which is a boon no matter how you look at it.

I'll agree wholeheartedly that being able to move and shoot from our boats is nice. But when firing, say, a Dark Lance, does the difference between moving 12" and firing and 14" and firing grant a significant advantage?

Quote :

5. I'd also note that, compared to other armies, we are assuredly on the high end of the scale for assault speed. So if your complaint is that we're slow, the logical counterpoint is 'who is faster?' to which you have limited options for consideration

Sure, we're in the higher end of speed, but we have no dedicated assault that can Deepstrike and slightly above average speed on our boats at best . We sacrifice toughness, strength, and a better save to be fast, but all of this is in vain when the result is a meager extra 2" of movement compared to Space Marines.

MyrvnSybarite

Posts : 386Join date : 2012-08-05

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 20:21

I don't know how to quote an earlier post.. but regarding gun boats, they appear faster in 8th in a tangible way. The mobile gun platform for splinter weapons does seem better as it is more of a 6"->14" move, not 12"->14". I guess on the vehicle mounted weapons it isn't that much of an issue, but for the guys inside it seems like a huge advantage.

TheBaconPopeWych

Posts : 662Join date : 2017-03-10

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 20:28

Quote :

The mobile gun platform for splinter weapons does seem better as it is more of a 6"->14" move, not 12"->14".

Sorry if I wasn't more clear on this point, I agree unequivocally that being able to move 14-16" and still have occupants fire is an undeniable benefit. My main lamentation is that our assault transports don't really lend themselves to assault anymore.My earlier was related to the weapons on the vehicle itself.

And, if you're on desktop, you can just hit the "Quote" button at the top right (?). If you're on mobile, you can copy paste the text within quote][/quote but with brackets.

5. I'd also note that, compared to other armies, we are assuredly on the high end of the scale for assault speed.

How are you rating this?

If you're talking about assaulting out of vehicles, then the vehicle's speed is basically irrelevant (since you can't disembark after it moves). Hence, the charge range from a vehicle is 3+X+2d6", where X is the model's speed.

Our Wych-type units have all of 2" over, say, a unit of Assault Mariness assaulting out of a Rhino. Whoop-de-do.

If you're looking at our HQs, then the best they can manage is 11+2d6". Compare that to, say, a Biker Warboss - which has a 14+2d6" charge.

Hell, even the much-touted Hellions are no faster than standard bikes.

Given that we've also traded our high initiative for this, I just don't find our speed remotely impressive.

MyrvnSybarite

Posts : 386Join date : 2012-08-05

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 20:33

Quote :

My point there was related to the weapons on the vehicle itself

That makes sense. I missed the original intent. Thank you for the quote help.

Sure, we're in the higher end of speed, but we have no dedicated assault that can Deepstrike and slightly above average speed on our boats at best . We sacrifice toughness, strength, and a better save to be fast, but all of this is in vain when the result is a meager extra 2" of movement compared to Space Marines.

So if I understand your complaint correctly - you're aware that we're one of the faster armies in the game, but you want the differential of speed to be greater than it is for faster armies vs. slower ones? I could guardedly be supportive of that, but it wouldn't change the core assessment of speed in the game, wherein we are a fast army.

Given that we've also traded our high initiative for this, I just don't find our speed remotely impressive.

Okay, so this is a different issue then, yeah?Your complaint is that you want our speed to be greater than it is - not that we're slow in the overall assessment of the game.

I have personally been finding the game's movement to overall make boards feel smaller, myself, but I wouldn't complain about getting a few extra inches.

Overall I have found the DE's ability to shoot at maximum output with no particular movement hampering to be a fairly solid ability that doesn't have a lot of competition from other dexes. High initiative has, for my money, been half handed back to us by removal of terrain impacting strike order - whereupon a more maneuverable and fast army will tend to get off charges and thus will tend to swing first. There are some issues with this with some of the swing first tech out there which we are sorely lacking, but my assault units are assuredly benefiting from the switch overall.

I would certainly second your comments about HQs though, fast HQs are very much lacking for us, and it's a silly omission considering the core concept of the army.

So if I understand your complaint correctly - you're aware that we're one of the faster armies in the game, but you want the differential of speed to be greater than it is for faster armies vs. slower ones? I could guardedly be supportive of that, but it wouldn't change the core assessment of speed in the game, wherein we are a fast army.

Essentially, if we had the ability to disembark after the transport moved, and some rules that allow advancing and charging on key assault units...I'd be satisfied with our speed. That's what it really boils down to. (Oh and maybe make the Raider move 16", I'm still astounded they didn't do that.)

_________________"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

Thor665Archon

Posts : 5526Join date : 2011-06-10Location : Venice, FL

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 21:12

Disembarking after movement feels a little balance wonky for the current ruleset. I mean, I'd take it and laugh all the way, but I'd know I was getting an unfair leg up.Getting an assault after advance rule would be awesome.I agree that 16" Raider movement makes a lot of sense.

Disembarking after movement feels a little balance wonky for the current ruleset.

It'd have to be carefully worded for sure, perhaps even as an upgrade (Raiders have had those little ramps on them for ages, and they haven't been doing much of anything).Maybe something like, "Arcane Assault: Models may disembark from this vehicle at the end of your movement phase."

In that way, they'd be more akin to Deep Strikers as far as mechanics go, which would mean they couldn't move/advance. (I'd agree that Wyches being able to feasibly move 29 inches in a single turn would be a little insane.)

_________________"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

MyrvnSybarite

Posts : 386Join date : 2012-08-05

Subject: Re: Slowest we've ever been? Fri Aug 25 2017, 21:49

What about a rule that provides an additional disembarking distance instead?

"Ramp: models disembarking from this model may be placed within 6" if the model...". It wouldn't be game breaking, but provides a significant boost to assault moves.

You mention a lot of numbers, but even you admit that the DE are faster

We are slightly faster when it comes to assaulting from vehicles.

However, my point was that when you look at other methods of assault we are no faster than other armies or even slower (for example, assaulting from one of our vehicles is still slower than stuff like the Jump Pack assault troops that other armies can access).

Overall I have found the DE's ability to shoot at maximum output with no particular movement hampering to be a fairly solid ability that doesn't have a lot of competition from other dexes.

That is indeed nice. I just wish we we were in a better position to take advantage of it.

As it is though, we have no shooting buffs, PfP only helps melee units and most of our units are melee focused (we've only got about 4 that can really make use of our transports, and even a couple of those are niche at best).

Disembarking after movement feels a little balance wonky for the current ruleset.

It'd have to be carefully worded for sure, perhaps even as an upgrade (Raiders have had those little ramps on them for ages, and they haven't been doing much of anything).Maybe something like, "Arcane Assault: Models may disembark from this vehicle at the end of your movement phase."

In that way, they'd be more akin to Deep Strikers as far as mechanics go, which would mean they couldn't move/advance. (I'd agree that Wyches being able to feasibly move 29 inches in a single turn would be a little insane.)

I wonder, wouldn't it be simpler if we get some deepstriking back on our transports? DS has always been our thing and seeing how all other armies get some fancy rules back I don't think this is unthinkable in the new meta of 8th. Not to mention that at least half of the army needs to be deployed at the start of the game anyway, so we can't abuse it either.

It'd also go back to our 7th edition roots where we had to buy DS with Retrofire Jets.